Category: Politics

The Romney Campaign’s Beautiful Political Stunt

I’ve discussed how I think the Romney campaign needs a better propaganda minister. Perhaps somebody at the campaign is reading my blog because their latest political stunt makes for some amazing propaganda:

Romney was originally slated to campaign over the weekend in Virginia, but canceled plans there and joined running mate Paul Ryan in Ohio. Curt Cashour, Romney’s Virginia communications director, tweeted Monday that the campaign bus will instead be used to transport basic supplies to local storm-relief centers.

Romney’s propaganda minister nailed it. While this stunt costs the Romney campaign nothing of importance it make it appear that Romney is willing to put what resources he has available into helping those likely to be hit hard by the oncoming storm. I think a few additional bonus points could have been generated if Romney personally drove that bus for its first supply run but that would have put the campaign’s star candidate into harm’s way, which is risky this close to an election. Overall I think this stunt was a magnificent piece of work and should really help Romney’s supporters show how much Romney cares about the people.

Political Organization Candidate Ratings are Often Meaningless

Most people know that a politician is lying anytime he opens his mouth. Yet people will often accept a political organization’s candidate rating as factual. How many times have you heard somebody say, “He has an NRA A rating so you know he’s good?” Many political organizations base their ratings on surveys that are sent to candidates, meaning the organization’s ratings are based on the words of a politicians. If you can’t trust what a politician says why would you trust what they put on a survey. When you’re looking at a political organization’s candidate rating you should always check their methodology.

Campaign for Liberty recently released their candidate ratings. Kurt Bills received a perfect score, which is being touted around by many people in the liberty movement as proof that Bills is a true liberty activist. His rating was determined by a survey filled out by him or somebody in his office. It’s effectively meaningless because it’s saying that Kurt Bills believes Kurt Bills is a true liberty candidate. I’m glad Kurt Bills says he’s a liberty candidate but I have a hard time believing that a candidate who voted in favor of making the prohibition against same-sex marriages constitutional, endorsed Mitt Romney, and blames voters for voting for their preferred candidate cares about liberty.

Not all political organizations base their ratings on the claims of candidates. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) base their ratings on the both the statements of politicians and their actions [PDF]. For example, they grant Obama a score of one in regards to Guantanamo Bay because he backtracked on his promise to close the prison facility. I put more faith into ratings that are based on a politician’s actions instead of their words.

When looking at candidate ratings from political organizations make sure you check that organization’s methodology. Many organizations base their ratings on the claims of the candidates whereas others will look at the actions. As the saying goes, actions speak louder than words.

Kurt Bills Appears to be Towing the Republican Party Line

I noticed a handful of my friends posted a message that they purport to be from Kurt Bills (these friends are supporters of Bills so I have no reason to doubt them). The message really shows how that Bill is more about towing the Republican Party line than standing up for true liberty:

In June 2009 Norm Coleman conceded his Senate race to comedian Al Franken.

He lost the race, after 6 months of recounts and legal battles, by 312 votes.

In December 2010, Tom Emmer conceded his race for Governor after a similar recount, losing by fewer than 9000 votes.

Both races have something in common much more important than the fact that they ended after recounts: they ended with extremely liberal politicians taking power entirely due to the defection of Republicans to third-party candidates.

In a very real way, Democrats didn’t win those elections as much as Republicans chose to lose them.

In my mind, that is shameful. Do any of the Republicans who voted for Dean Barkley or Tom Horner really believe our state and our country are better off with Al Franken and Mark Dayton as Senator and Governor?

This really raises a pet peeve of mine; third parties continue to be blamed for the Republican Party’s losses. Who is really to blame? Are the voters who cast their ballots for third party candidates instead of Republican candidates to blame or is the Republican Party to blame for not fielding candidates its base found acceptable? Bills apparently blames the voters. He seems to think voters are too stupid or incompetent to know what’s best for them.

Norm Coleman was, at best, a middle of the road candidate. He flip flopped almost as much as Romney and he followed no understandable philosophy. It’s not hard to see why he lost. Tom Emmer started out sounding like a candidate Republicans would happily support but after he received the endorsement his statements started moving more towards the center of the political spectrum. I’m sure some campaign strategist took Emmer aside and said, “Listen Tom, you have the endorsement now so you don’t have to make the Republicans happy. Keep a low profile so you don’t put off the Democrats and you will win this election.” Needless to say he lost.

I don’t think the Republican’s failures is the fault of the voters, I believe it’s the fault of the Republican Party itself. Why do the party big wigs think they’ll get support for wishy washy candidates? They must feel entitled to support, which is ironic because they are the ones who speak out so adamantly against entitlement programs. It also appears that Bills believes people should vote for Republicans instead of liberty candidates. This doesn’t surprise me, he’s proving to be more and more of a party shill by the day. Even though the liberty movement in Minnesota is largely responsible for Bill’s endorsement he’s been quick to throw them under the bus.

I’m glad Bills is showing his true colors. Seeing who he really is now will dull the liberty movement’s pain if he gets into office (because once he’s in I’m betting he’s going to go full neocon).

Log Cabin Republicans Stab Their Supporters in the Back

The golden rule of politics is simple: trust no one. Politics offers power and power attracts sociopaths so, ultimately, working within political organizations will involve working with people who will, in all likelihood, slide a knife into your back when it’s politically convenient. The Log Cabin Republicans just finished wiping the blood off of their knife after their announced endorsement of Mitt Romney. For those of you who don’t know the Log Cabin Republicans are a group that tries to promote gay rights in the Republican Party:

What We Believe

We are loyal Republicans. We believe in limited government, strong national defense, free markets, low taxes, personal responsibility, and individual liberty. Log Cabin represents an important part of the American family—taxpaying, hard working people who proudly believe in this nation’s greatness. We also believe all Americans have the right to liberty and equality. We believe equality for gay and lesbian people is in the finest tradition of the Republican Party. We educate our Party about why inclusion wins. Opposing gay and lesbian equality is inconsistent with the GOP’s core principles of smaller government and personal freedom.

Considering Romney’s stance on gay rights one is left wondering how an organization like the Log Cabin Republicans can endorse him. The answer to that lies in their endorsing statement (which is a lot of bullshit wrapped around a morsel of relevant information):

The qualified nature of this endorsement means that Log Cabin Republicans will be most active in our support for House and Senate candidates. Our membership base and network of chapters nationwide will be actively supporting our allies in Congress as part of the National Republican Congressional Committee’s “Operation Rolling Surge” deployment program.

Our greatest efforts will be directed at electing pro-equality leaders like Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), the first Republican to cosponsor the repeal of the so-called Defense of Marriage Act; members of the House LGBT Equality Caucus like Representatives Nan Hayworth and Richard Hanna of New York; and staunchly pro-equality challengers like Linda McMahon of Connecticut and our very own Richard Tisei of Massachusetts, who will become the first openly gay Republican elected to Congress. While many of our members will also be working hard on behalf of Governor Romney, growing the pro-equality Republican presence in the House and Senate is our highest electoral priority this year.

This brings up one of my pet peeves with the political process, if an individual or organization wants to gain any political influence they must compromise their principles. Members of the Log Cabin Republicans are likely hoping that their endorsement of Romney will gain the organization some influence with Republican hardliners who are starkly opposed to gay rights. Hardline Republicans usually consider any organization that doesn’t endorse all Republican candidates as party traitors. If the Log Cabin Republicans refused to endorse Mitt Romney those hardliners would label the organization as traitorous, refuse to work with them, and possibly refuse to work with any organization endorsed candidates (who, by association, would likely be labeled as traitors).

Such political maneuvers never work out in the end. By endorsing Romney the Log Cabin Republicans have alienated their supporters. Advocates of gay rights are unlikely to trust the Log Cabin Republicans in the future and will denounce and abandon the organization in droves. With their base gone the organization will likely fade into irrelevancy. The Log Cabin Republicans offered the Republican Party votes, campaign contributions, and volunteer labor from advocates of gay rights. Without those advocates the organization has nothing to offer politically and will therefore have no influence in the Republican Party.

I’ve left one glaring question unanswered: if these kinds of political maneuvers don’t work why do organizations continue to make them? The answer to that is simple, the leadership of these organizations usually become obsessed with power. It wouldn’t surprise me to hear that somebody in the Romney campaign offered the decision makers of the Log Cabin Republicans some kind of reward in exchange for the organization’s endorsement. Perhaps several of the decision makers were offered influential positions inside the Republican Party itself. A reward like that can be easily passed off to an organization’s membership as a good thing since it can be claimed to give the organization influence within the Republican Party. In reality the people who take such rewards are usually hungry for power and care little about principles so their gain of an influential position gains their former organization nothing. Any attempt to use their newfound position to push their former organization’s agenda will be short lived as hardline Republicans will offer more power in exchange for dropping said agenda. It’s a vicious cycle that promotes sociopathic behavior. The power base continues their reign while members wanting to enact political change are squashed.

Advocates of gay rights within the Republican Party just got a firsthand lesson in the political process. Hopefully they learn from it and give no further support to the Republican Party.

The GOP Stupid Train Keeps Chugging Along

The Republican Party seems to have a problem keeping a muzzle on their candidates this year. First Todd Akins claimed that women rarely get pregnant from legitimate rape then Jon Hubbad and Loy Mauch claimed slavery was a blessing in disguise. Now a Republican Senate candidates named Richard Mourdock has publicly stated that pregnancies resulting from rape are a gift from God:

Indiana Republican Senate candidate Richard Mourdock said Tuesday when a woman is impregnated during a rape, “it’s something God intended.”

Mourdock, who’s been locked in a tight race with Democratic challenger Rep. Joe Donnelly, was asked during the final minutes of a debate whether abortion should be allowed in cases of rape or incest.

“I struggled with it myself for a long time, but I came to realize that life is that gift from God. And, I think, even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happened,” Mourdock said.

Are these clowns trying to see who can say the dumbest statement publicly? Perhaps he’s hoping to get some of that sweet RandPAC money.

Sometimes the Truth is Best Delivered Through Satire

It amazes me that a satirical news site like The Onion can make the most accurate commentary about current political events:

BOCA RATON, FL—Saying that the high-value target represented a major threat to their most vital objectives, Obama administration officials confirmed tonight that former governor Mitt Romney was killed by a predator drone while attending a presidential debate at Lynn University.

[…]

The drone strike, which killed three of Romney’s sons sitting near the debate stage, reportedly also took the lives of at least 45 civilians, including 12 Lynn University students, nine Secret Service agents, first daughter Malia Obama, and two cameramen.

“Military operations of this ilk are dangerous, and occasionally a few innocent civilians get caught in the crossfire,” said Carney, describing the lost arm and severe second-degree facial burns inflicted on debate moderator Bob Schieffer as “necessary collateral damage.” “However, we must realize that this is a price we pay when we face our greatest challenges.”

At press time, President Obama was reportedly wiping his face clean of Romney’s blood and had removed his late opponent’s severed head from his lap to begin his closing remarks.

Why is it that a satirical newspaper like The Onion has more in-depth coverage of the presidential debates than so-called reputable news organizations? While both candidates are arguing in favor of continuing and starting new wars news organizations like Fox, CNN, and NBC are arguing over who “won” the debate. It’s pretty difficult to discern a winner when both candidates hold the exact same views.

Something I Often Wonder

There’s something I’ve wondered for some time now. If you were given the ability to have all of your political goals granted at the expensive of the lives of a group of people you’ve never met and would likely never meet would you do it? For example, if you could have all gun control measures repealed instantly but in doing so 1,000 Middle Easterners would be killed would you do it? Or if you could have universal healthcare for all that was guaranteed to work but in doing so 1,000 South American natives would be killed would you do it?

When I see people arguing over Romney and Obama I see people willing to sacrifice the lives of people they’ve never met in exchange for their political goals. Both candidates are in almost complete agreement when it comes to foreign policy and their agreement involves the murder of an untold number of people. Those advocating for Romney are often doing so because they believe Romney will somehow protect gun rights and prevent the economy from further sliding down the hill. Obama’s advocates, on the other hand, want the Affordable Care Act to continue and gay marriage legalized throughout the country. Both sides have been willing to either ignore their candidate’s foreign relations policies or somehow justify them.

So, for those of you supporting Romney or Obama, we’re left with the question: are you willing to exchange the lives of people you’ve never met for your political gains? Ultimately that is the price that will be paid if either candidate wins.

Tune in Tonight to See Who Will Promise to Murder the Most People

Tonight millions of Americans will tune in to watch the two leading presidential candidates debate over who will murder more foreigners:

Mr Obama will be aiming to stress his commander-in-chief credentials as the man who killed Osama Bin Laden and ended the Iraq war, analysts say, while trying to portray Mr Romney as lacking the experience to steer the nation through a crisis.

Polling suggests Mr Obama has a small advantage in voter perceptions about which candidate is best prepared to handle US foreign policy in a chaotic world.

For his part, Mr Romney is expected to push his campaign’s position that US foreign policy is “unravelling before our very eyes”.

At a confrontational second debate in New York last week, Mr Romney said the 11 September attack on the US consulate in Benghazi – which killed four Americans including the US ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens – and wider anti-American violence in the Middle East were symptomatic of that decline.

The Republican candidate accused Mr Obama of initially downplaying the role of radical Islamists in the Benghazi attack – in order to protect a successful anti-terrorist track record.

Obama certainly has the Osama card but Romney has the Benghazi card and the fact that Obama snuffed Netanyahu, which will score big points with the neoconservatives who worship Israel. In the end everybody but the presidential candidates and war mongers will lose. Both candidates support the same violent interventionist policies and are merely debating over who can promise the most violence. Neither candidate will bring the troops home, close America’s foreign military bases, or cease assassinating people with drones.

Needless to say I’m not going to watch the debates. I have no interest in watching a couple of sociopaths argue over who can create more dead bodies outside of America’s borders.

A Message to My Fellow Gun Rights Advocates

I know the election is looming and I know Obama has openly stated, again, that he supports a new “assault weapon” ban but we really need to talk.

With the election coming up the arguments, as expected, are getting very heated. What I can’t fathom is why advocates of gun rights are getting into such heated arguments over the presidential race. Many gun rights activists are actually arguing over which anti-gunner will be “less” of an anti-gunner. Is this what we’ve reduced ourselves to? Have we fallen so far that we’re actually willing to support an advocate of gun control so long as they’re not “worse” than another advocate of gun control? Will we throw our support behind a candidate who favors an “assault weapon” ban so long as his opponent supports an “assault weapon” ban and a ban on private sales?

This is getting ridiculous. I honestly can’t believe so many activists in the gun rights community are arguing in favor of an anti-gunner like Romney just because he’s not as anti-gun as Obama. I know people love politics and using the political means to achieve their goals. That’s fine, you can keep doing that without having to sell your soul. The president is only one piece of the political gun rights puzzle and a rather minor piece at that. In order to get a new “assault weapon” ban through legislation needs to be passed by the House and the Senate before the president even has the opportunity to sign it. Since the presidency is a lost cause when it comes to gun rights why not focus on controlling Congress? So long as one of the two houses are held by pro-gun candidates getting gun control legislation through will be difficult.

The bottom line is this: the more energy you expend on the already lost presidential election the less energy you’ll have to expend on congressional battles. I realize that the president is the most well-known political figure in this country and therefore he’s the guy you want to focus on but there’s no point if neither candidate will deliver what you want. Why not focus on the potentially winnable battle even if it will be less glorious? Sure, nobody will likely hear about whatever congress critter you’ve worked to get elected but if he is a supporter of gun rights you’ll have actually achieved something.

Of course you don’t need to rely on the political means to achieve victory. You could always practice civil disobedience, jury nullification, or agorism. We now have the technology to render gun control entirely irrelevant, let’s use it.